If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

[Doug Shaver]

Here is wiki:

Bias is an inclination or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. Biases can be learned implicitly within cultural contexts. People may develop biases toward or against an individual, an ethnic group, a nation, a religion, a social class, a political party, theoretical paradigms and ideologies within academic domains, or a species.[1] Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, or not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is related to prejudice and intuition.[2]

In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. Statistical bias results from an unfair sampling of a population, or from an estimation process that does not give accurate results on average.

[hansgeorg]

In historiography, there is such a thing as "systematic error" too, precisely as with "statistical bias". Indeed, Hume is precisely arguing from a biassed statistic when he claims "universal experience" makes miracles so totally unusual that it is very unlikely.

[shunyadragon]

In historiography, there is such a thing as "systematic error" too, precisely as with "statistical bias". Indeed, Hume is precisely arguing from a biased statistic when he claims "universal experience" makes miracles so totally unusual that it is very unlikely.

Claims of miracles are not unusual in ancient historical narratives in most cultures. There are notable exceptions like most of the writings of Confucius in China, which contain limited descriptions or references of what would be called miraculous.

The problem is modern history where objectively documented miracles are virtually absent.

[Tassman]

statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth

As far as the gospels are concerned, the only tradition supporting them is hearsay evidence in the form of embellished oral tradition. They were only compiled in written form several decades after the purported events and feature highly improbable miracles. This is insufficient evidence upon which to base belief.

statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth

"And, very often with regard to historical figures including Washington, we know what they looked like from portraits, statues, busts and coins etc."

The "bonus pastor" icons would probably reflect how Jesus looked when young. The later iconography, which has a beard, is probably from either the Shroud he was buried in, or the Veil of Veronica or the picture sent to Edessa to King Abgar

There is no empirical evidence of a miracle-working Jesus; with George Washington there is considerable empirical evidence...not least being the US presidential records which establish Washington held the office in the late 18th century, plus much else

If any dead had ever risen when the name of Tinkerbell had been invoked, we might discuss that.

When it comes to legends about the Flood, I'll consider them as a measure on how far from or close to traditions adher to fact, using Genesis 6-8 for the fact check. BUT, with Pagan traditions, I will also consider that the traditions about creation and Flood have been more meddled with than the usual, because of a deliberate desire to get away from the clear memory of the truths of Genesis.

Geologists tell us that the worldwide flood as recorded in Genesis cannot possibly have occurred...not to mention the logistical impossibility of getting the animals into the ark and collecting unique creatures from far flung places such as Australia.

As you just showed in the George Washington case : most of the things you accept as "factual evidence supporting tradition" are in fact either in themselves tradition or depending on it.

When a man is dead and another man says "Lazarus, come out of the grave!" or "Lazarus, come out of there!" I am not with an "unexplained event" which might have a natural explanation if in fact he also comes out.

The Lazarus story is based upon hearsay arising in a superstitious age of myths and magic and reinforced by gullible disciples who wanted to believe.

In such a case, I am explaining the event as a miracle. Unless there is reason to believe there was fraud, which is unlikely considering the tomb structure and the fact Jesus didn't know of the event in advance : Lazarus had died as a sick man, while Jesus was absent. Not an ideal fake corpse for a fake miracle, if you ask me.

[Doug Shaver]

In historiography, there is such a thing as "systematic error" too, precisely as with "statistical bias".

Indeed, Hume is precisely arguing from a biassed statistic when he claims "universal experience" makes miracles so totally unusual that it is very unlikely.

[hansgeorg]

Claims of miracles are not unusual in ancient historical narratives in most cultures. There are notable exceptions like most of the writings of Confucius in China, which contain limited descriptions or references of what would be called miraculous.

Is any writing of Confucius at all a historic narrative?

And, if true, could this be because he had an antimiraculous bias, like (as I recall) Plutarch?

The problem is modern history where objectively documented miracles are virtually absent.

You are not well read up on Catholic miracles, if you think that.

I disagree, in science you can have exact and uncontroversial answers. In historiography, you have evaluation of what sources you consider credible.

I don't think "would apparently violate some natural law" is a very good definition of a miracle.

It would be tons better to define it as "will not apparently admit to a created/natural causation". Within the event there are normally causations which can be natural, but at the bottom a thing is done which no natural cause can do.

I would not consider the presumption the event did not occur a very good one, I would consider openness to all explanations - strictly supernatural as divine, preternatural as diabolic, natural causation and made up - a good starting point and then exclude the false starts one by one. That is also the attitude of the Catholic Church when examining a miracle.

[hansgeorg]

As far as the gospels are concerned, the only tradition supporting them is hearsay evidence in the form of embellished oral tradition. They were only compiled in written form several decades after the purported events and
feature highly improbable miracles. This is insufficient evidence upon which to base belief.

Your claim one: "the only tradition supporting them is hearsay evidence in the form of embellished oral tradition" - unsupported by historic facts, only derived by prejudice and biassed scholarship as reconstruction.
Your claim two: "They were only compiled in written form several decades after the purported events" - contradicts the tradition about authroship.
Your claim three: "feature highly improbable miracles." That they feature miracles no body disputes, but that they are highly improbable (except as to statistic previous probability for them happening as chance events, of course) is Humean bias.

There is no empirical evidence of a miracle-working Jesus; with George Washington there is considerable empirical evidence...not least being the US presidential records which establish Washington held the office in the late 18th century, plus much else

The presidential records are one type of precisely tradition.

You are assuming that when Reagan left office to Bush, the record left Reagan in the years he had been president, you are also assuming that this goes back all the way to George Washington, and I support these assumptions.

The thing is, similar assumptions are as reasonable about the succession of bishops from the Apostles - which indicate the Catholic Church (or some would say Orthodox Church, some would say Coptic, Armenian or Nestorian Church) goes back to people who were eyewitnesses to the miracles and Resurrection of Christ, since his twelve disciples.

This on the other hand rules out quite a lot of the nonsense assumptions about an unstructured community at first perpetuating its collective memory by the means of urban legends. Or us not knowing who wrote what book and when.

If you take presidential records as evidence that George Washington signed declaration of independence, you are well advised also to take the records of the bishop see of Tours, as given by Gregory of Tours, as indication the dead body of St Martin of Tours by merely touching other dead bodies brought three of them back to life.

Geologists tell us that the worldwide flood as recorded in Genesis cannot possibly have occurred...not to mention the logistical impossibility of getting the animals into the ark and collecting unique creatures from far flung places such as Australia.

I have dealt with the geological issue, though some claims remain for me to investigate. As far as land vertebrates are concerned, no place has a strictly vertical succession of them in diverse periods, and therefore all diverse periods of fossils could very well be from one single flood.

There was no logistic duty of Noah to go collecting animals, God brought the ones he should take aboard to him, by miracle. See text.

There was no logistic difficulty in having them all on the Ark either, Woodmorappe has done a feasability study, which I recommend.

The factual and empirical evidence for the existence of George Washington, I am not denying there is lots of it, but all which you have provided so far is of the type I call tradition.

That evidence is also available to point to the twelve disciples being original leaders, after Christ, of the Christian Church, and therefore to their testimony of what Christ did.

Your "only late written Gospels" simply ignores that we are dealing with a succession of bishops in wells tructured communities good at keeping records, both in writing and orally.

The Lazarus story is based upon hearsay arising in a superstitious age of myths and magic and reinforced by gullible disciples who wanted to believe.

Your scenario is a bit riddled with holes.

"Based upon hearsay" I have already dealt with.

As to "arising in a superstitious age of myths and magic and reinforced by gullible disciples who wanted to believe" you are really attacking the human capacity of keeping record of past events.

Why could not the story of George Washington as well have arisen in a superstitious age gullible enough to give Cagliostro an audience, an age of rumours of revolution and reform and reinforced by gullible people who wanted to believe in Revolutions?

It is also clear, you have no very good explanation for the story if originally part of the tradition, all you can do is suppose it is late.

[shunyadragon]

Is any writing of Confucius at all a historic narrative?

And, if true, could this be because he had an anti-miraculous bias, like (as I recall) Plutarch?

Yes, the writings of Confucius contain some historical narratives, and his lamenting the breakdown of order and society in the 'Warring States period' of Chinese history as well as collections of poetry, literature and narratives of traditions and ritual.

You are not well read up on Catholic miracles, if you think that.

Yes, I grew up in the Roman Church in Central America. I consider the claims of miracles in the Roman Church to be anecdotal and severely wanting concerning objective verifiable evidence.

I disagree, in science you can have exact and uncontroversial answers. In historiography, you have evaluation of what sources you consider credible.

There has never been any reference to [exact] answers on my part. At present you have not responded constructively to my posts on this issue. Our dialogue is decidedly hobbled by your rejection of modern academic science and math.

[hansgeorg]

Yes, the writings of Confucius contain some historical narratives, and his lamenting the breakdown of order and society in the 'Warring States period' of Chinese history as well as collections of poetry, literature and narratives of traditions and ritual.

Contain historical narratives, but more or less like illustrations of certain topics, rather than as a continuing narrative, perhaps? I am no expert, I'd have to look it up in wikipedia.

Even if a continuous narrative, if Confucius does not exactly cite miracles, it might have been more due to his outlook than to his sources. One manga about Confucianism (yes, they have mangas about everything, not just about stories that are fun, quirky or exciting) cites as a Confucian principle to care about people of flesh and blood rather than about the spirit world, as a priority.

Suggests he might have had access to rather convincing material about at least preternatural things and chose not to bother.

Yes, I grew up in the Roman Church in Central America. I consider the claims of miracles in the Roman Church to be anecdotal and severely wanting concerning objective verifiable evidence.

What is your take on the Tilma?

I think I am a bit closer to events in Lourdes or Austria.

There has never been any reference to [exact] answers on my part. At present you have not responded constructively to my posts on this issue. Our dialogue is decidedly hobbled by your rejection of modern academic science and math.

That part was to Doug Shaver. Perhaps I should not have conflated my answers to him and to you in same post?

As for the rest, sorry if dialoguing with you depends on accepting the principles you propose and I reject! If there are, however, any posts of yours I totally missed, it may have been due to other debates and to other duties on the internet, like writing on my blogs. If so, send me relevant pages of forum debates, where I have lacked to respond.

[Tassman]

Your claim one: "the only tradition supporting them is hearsay evidence in the form of embellished oral tradition" - unsupported by historic facts, only derived by prejudice and biassed scholarship as reconstruction.

Again, the only evidence supporting the Jesus story is hearsay in the form of embellished oral tradition. This is fact, not "prejudice and bias".

Your claim two: "They were only compiled in written form several decades after the purported events" - contradicts the tradition about authroship.

Perhaps, but it does not contradict the scholarly consensus about late authorship.

Your claim three: "feature highly improbable miracles." That they feature miracles no body disputes, but that they are highly improbable (except as to statistic previous probability for them happening as chance events, of course) is Humean bias.

The presidential records are one type of precisely tradition.

You are assuming that when Reagan left office to Bush, the record left Reagan in the years he had been president, you are also assuming that this goes back all the way to George Washington, and I support these assumptions.

The thing is, similar assumptions are as reasonable about the succession of bishops from the Apostles - which indicate the Catholic Church (or some would say Orthodox Church, some would say Coptic, Armenian or Nestorian Church) goes back to people who were eyewitnesses to the miracles and Resurrection of Christ, since his twelve disciples.

This on the other hand rules out quite a lot of the nonsense assumptions about an unstructured community at first perpetuating its collective memory by the means of urban legends. Or us not knowing who wrote what book and when.

There are no eyewitness accounts of the Jesus events in the gospels; this is not a debatable point. There are eyewitness accounts re George Washington. See the difference?

If you take presidential records as evidence that George Washington signed declaration of independence, you are well advised also to take the records of the bishop see of Tours, as given by Gregory of Tours, as indication the dead body of St Martin of Tours by merely touching other dead bodies brought three of them back to life.

You're glossing over the difference between empirically-based secular history and anecdotal religious folk-lore. Hagiography is not critical history.

I have dealt with the geological issue, though some claims remain for me to investigate. As far as land vertebrates are concerned, no place has a strictly vertical succession of them in diverse periods, and therefore all diverse periods of fossils could very well be from one single flood.

There was no logistic duty of Noah to go collecting animals, God brought the ones he should take aboard to him, by miracle. See text.

There was no logistic difficulty in having them all on the Ark either, Woodmorappe has done a feasability study, which I recommend.

The factual and empirical evidence for the existence of George Washington, I am not denying there is lots of it, but all which you have provided so far is of the type I call tradition.

That evidence is also available to point to the twelve disciples being original leaders, after Christ, of the Christian Church, and therefore to their testimony of what Christ did.

The Ebionites under James the brother of Jesus do not fit this neat narrative of yours, nor is it supported by facts. The early Church was riddled with conflicts ranging from Jewish Christianity, Gnostic Christianity and much more.

Your "only late written Gospels" simply ignores that we are dealing with a succession of bishops in wells tructured communities good at keeping records, both in writing and orally.

As to "arising in a superstitious age of myths and magic and reinforced by gullible disciples who wanted to believe" you are really attacking the human capacity of keeping record of past events.

Why could not the story of George Washington as well have arisen in a superstitious age gullible enough to give Cagliostro an audience, an age of rumours of revolution and reform and reinforced by gullible people who wanted to believe in Revolutions?

The difference is the considerable empirical evidence available re George Washington compared to no empirical evidence supporting the Jesus story.

It is also clear, you have no very good explanation for the story if originally part of the tradition, all you can do is suppose it is late.

The majority of biblical historians know

[hansgeorg]

Again, the only evidence supporting the Jesus story is hearsay in the form of embellished oral tradition. This is fact, not "prejudice and bias".

It is not a brute fact observable now.

Nor is it a brute fact gleanable from the tradition.

Hence, it is a conclusion, not a brute fact. Now, this conclusion has been reached by prejudice against the tradition we have the Gospels from and bias of the Humean type.

Perhaps, but it does not contradict the scholarly consensus about late authorship.

The tradition very well does that.

You are expressing a bias, without even bothering to support it with anything like a case study of what I call a substantially evidenced miracle.

There are no eyewitness accounts of the Jesus events in the gospels; this is not a debatable point. There are eyewitness accounts re George Washington. See the difference?

No. A poe could tomorrow start a conspiracy theory about all eyewitness accounts about George Washington being lots later accretions, invented in the time of Abraham Lincoln.

People within that conspiracy theory could the next day start saying that this is not even a debatable point, and doing it with the exact same emphasis as you show.

How would you counter?

You're glossing over the difference between empirically-based secular history and anecdotal religious folk-lore. Hagiography is not critical history.

Empirical (as applied to history) and anecdotal both mean that we are dealing with individual facts, not with regular laws of nature. In other words, it is history, not science class.

The requirement that history should be secular can most often not really be met. Shunyadragon told us Confucius is an exception. Unless you consider Confucianism as a religion.

Folk lore, when dealing with historical narrative is one kind of history and it is also not the only kind we have about Christianity.

Probably because you have no credible scientific argument against ours.

Now it is your turn to prove it is not "tradition" or that "as tradition" it is of another kind.

The Ebionites under James the brother of Jesus do not fit this neat narrative of yours, nor is it supported by facts. The early Church was riddled with conflicts ranging from Jewish Christianity, Gnostic Christianity and much more.

Ebionites and Gnostics certainly existed, but were not parts of the Church, or in the case of Ebionites had been so but left it before the time of St John.

You are citing Carrier and Ehrmann, but they make the mistake of seeing "proto-Orthodox, Ebionites and Gnostics" as "factions within the Church", about as Anglicans and Presbyterians are seen as factions within the "Protestant Church". Or even within the "Christian Church" as Protestants view that.

In fact, the Catholic Church (which people like Ehrman and Carrier call "proto-Orthodox" to avoid any "hasty" identification) was as much against Gnostics and Ebionites then as against Protestants in the 16th Century. It is parodic to consider these as "factions" within the same Church.

Which disposes of the implication that a Church "with such factions" can't have been very well organised.

Indeed, there is, it is just that Ehrman and Carrier are glossing over it by calling enemies and rivals of the early Church "factions" of it.

The difference is the considerable empirical evidence available re George Washington compared to no empirical evidence supporting the Jesus story.

See above.

The majority of biblical historians know

See above.

[Tassman]

It is not a brute fact observable now.

Nor is it a brute fact gleanable from the tradition.

Hence, it is a conclusion, not a brute fact. Now, this conclusion has been reached by prejudice against the tradition we have the Gospels from and bias of the Humean type.

The tradition very well does that.

You are expressing a bias, without even bothering to support it with anything like a case study of what I call a substantially evidenced miracle.

There are no substantially evidenced miracles, merely subjectively based anecdotes...including god's big production numbers like the alleged miracle at Fatima, when the sun supposedly hurtled towards earth.

No. A poe could tomorrow start a conspiracy theory about all eyewitness accounts about George Washington being lots later accretions, invented in the time of Abraham Lincoln.

People within that conspiracy theory could the next day start saying that this is not even a debatable point, and doing it with the exact same emphasis as you show.

How would you counter?

Via critical-historical methodology!

Empirical (as applied to history) and anecdotal both mean that we are dealing with individual facts, not with regular laws of nature. In other words, it is history, not science class.

We are dealing with empirically evidenced facts as compared to unevidenced hearsay.

Folk lore, when dealing with historical narrative is one kind of history and it is also not the only kind we have about Christianity.

Probably because you have no credible scientific argument against ours.

Now it is your turn to prove it is not "tradition" or that "as tradition" it is of another kind.

Ebionites and Gnostics certainly existed, but were not parts of the Church, or in the case of Ebionites had been so but left it before the time of St John.

You are citing Carrier and Ehrmann, but they make the mistake of seeing "proto-Orthodox, Ebionites and Gnostics" as "factions within the Church", about as Anglicans and Presbyterians are seen as factions within the "Protestant Church". Or even within the "Christian Church" as Protestants view that.

In fact, the Catholic Church (which people like Ehrman and Carrier call "proto-Orthodox" to avoid any "hasty" identification) was as much against Gnostics and Ebionites then as against Protestants in the 16th Century. It is parodic to consider these as "factions" within the same Church.

Which disposes of the implication that a Church "with such factions" can't have been very well organised.

[hansgeorg]

On the contrary, the only evidence we have is tradition - and it flouts it.

Historical scholarship in any normal way, shape or form is solidly based on tradition, not on reconstructing the opposite of traditional accounts on every corner of the road.

There are no substantially evidenced miracles, merely subjectively based anecdotes...including god's big production numbers like the alleged miracle at Fatima, when the sun supposedly hurtled towards earth.

Supposing the angel of the Sun took the Sun down a few hundred or thousand meters - no big deal astronomically - and directed the rays from it so the movement should show, there is no real problem with accepting the miracle at Fatima.

It is very well evidenced.

Via critical-historical methodology!

And how would this apply to George Washington, if using exact same methodology as you are applying against Jesus?

We are dealing with empirically evidenced facts as compared to unevidenced hearsay.

History is not a science like maths.

History is an art in which hearsay is the lowest form of tradition, but in which tradition even so, including hearsay, is evidence.

Absolutely not, St Matthew is an eyewitness account and tradition as solid as that about George Washington makes it so.

That is quite another debate, I will deal with such pretended evidence against the veracity of those traditions another time. What is certain is that with so many other traditions supporting this or that or more than one main tenet of Genesis 1-11, you cannot say it is bad HISTORY to believe it as history.

Yes, but I qualified this as meaning that all of the lot was within the type of evidence I call tradition.

Those who argue so are pretending that St James' rule of the Church of Jerusalem was essentially Ebionite. There was some tolerance of Ebionite practise, as long as the Temple stood, but not of what came out as Ebionite doctrine.

Now, supposing we had had two parallel traditions, an Ebionite and a Catholic one, both surviving to our days, we would be trusting each of them on most of their historic facts, and only slightly leaning to the one or other about the facts where they differ, such as which of them accurately reflects the teaching or Our Lord.

We do not have that, and what we do have is one of the traditions dying out after some decade(s), one surviving to our day. The fact another one existed back then does not detract from its credibility about general fact. Also, you cannot argue from Ebionites against genuine authorship of St Matthew, since Ebionites also accepted it as genuine. The Gospel of St John was written to make the Gospel account more balanced on one doctrinal issue, since Ebionites were misusing stray parts of Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) as evidence of a kind of proto-Arian theology.

This means, both Ebionite and Catholic traditions witness the genuine Matthean authorship of St Matthew. The Ebionite one indirectly so, since we only have it bthrough the Catholic tradition about the circumstances in which St John's Gospel was written.

[Tassman]

On the contrary, the only evidence we have is tradition - and it flouts it.

Tradition alone is not reliable evidence.

Historical scholarship in any normal way, shape or form is solidly based on tradition, not on reconstructing the opposite of traditional accounts on every corner of the road.

Tradition does not necessarily reflect facts and, unlike critical-historical scholarship, 'tradition' alone cannot support its assumptions with credible evidence.

Supposing the angel of the Sun took the Sun down a few hundred or thousand meters - no big deal astronomically - and directed the rays from it so the movement should show, there is no real problem with accepting the miracle at Fatima. It is very well evidenced.

And how would this apply to George Washington, if using exact same methodology as you are applying against Jesus?

History is not a science like maths.

History is an art in which hearsay is the lowest form of tradition, but in which tradition even so, including hearsay, is evidence.

Absolutely not, St Matthew is an eyewitness account and tradition as solid as that about George Washington makes it so.

That is quite another debate, I will deal with such pretended evidence against the veracity of those traditions another time. What is certain is that with so many other traditions supporting this or that or more than one main tenet of Genesis 1-11, you cannot say it is bad HISTORY to believe it as history.

Those who argue so are pretending that St James' rule of the Church of Jerusalem was essentially Ebionite. There was some tolerance of Ebionite practise, as long as the Temple stood, but not of what came out as Ebionite doctrine.

Now, supposing we had had two parallel traditions, an Ebionite and a Catholic one, both surviving to our days, we would be trusting each of them on most of their historic facts, and only slightly leaning to the one or other about the facts where they differ, such as which of them accurately reflects the teaching or Our Lord.

We do not have that, and what we do have is one of the traditions dying out after some decade(s), one surviving to our day. The fact another one existed back then does not detract from its credibility about general fact. Also, you cannot argue from Ebionites against genuine authorship of St Matthew, since Ebionites also accepted it as genuine. The Gospel of St John was written to make the Gospel account more balanced on one doctrinal issue, since Ebionites were misusing stray parts of Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) as evidence of a kind of proto-Arian theology.

This means, both Ebionite and Catholic traditions witness the genuine Matthean authorship of St Matthew. The Ebionite one indirectly so, since we only have it bthrough the Catholic tradition about the circumstances in which St John's Gospel was written.

Catholic dogma erroneously likes to position itself as the original and only true Christianity surrounded from the beginning by pesky heretical sects requiring elimination. In fact there were many forms of early Christianity of which the proto-orthodox (Catholic) was but one.

If the Temple had not been destroyed by the Romans resulting in the Jewish diaspora, the Jewish Christianity of the Jerusalem Church under Jesus' brother James, probably would have prevailed over the Gentile Christianity of Paul, which subsequently dominated.

[Doug Shaver]

in science you can have exact and uncontroversial answers.

Sometimes. Not always by a long shot. And there is no sense in which science is defined by the exactness or uncontroversiality of its answers. It is defined by the methods it uses to get those answers. Those methods sometimes produce exact and uncontroversial answers, but they frequently do not.

I don't think "would apparently violate some natural law" is a very good definition of a miracle.

It would be tons better to define it as "will not apparently admit to a created/natural causation". Within the event there are normally causations which can be natural, but at the bottom a thing is done which no natural cause can do.

I would not consider the presumption the event did not occur a very good one

I would consider openness to all explanations - strictly supernatural as divine, preternatural as diabolic, natural causation and made up - a good starting point